Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thalir: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
*'''Not to DELETE'''- Article edited to remove the advertising contents like email and how to buy the book etc. Hope that it will be satisfy most people. |
*'''Not to DELETE'''- Article edited to remove the advertising contents like email and how to buy the book etc. Hope that it will be satisfy most people. |
||
:Better, but it is still encouraging people to buy the book, i.e. spam. I would vote to keep if the article simply indicated who published the book, when it was published, a synopsis, the contents (which is currently fine), critical reviews maybe etc. Place an external link for the company who published. Unfortunately, IMHO, the last section 'why you should buy the book' / 'why you shouldnt' is a dead give away as to why this is still spam. [[User:Rob-nick|Rob]] 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
:Better, but it is still encouraging people to buy the book, i.e. spam. I would vote to keep if the article simply indicated who published the book, when it was published, a synopsis, the contents (which is currently fine), critical reviews maybe etc. Place an external link for the company who published. Unfortunately, IMHO, the last section 'why you should buy the book' / 'why you shouldnt' is a dead give away as to why this is still spam. [[User:Rob-nick|Rob]] 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Not to DELETE'''-All the advertising content is removed. Only informaiton remains. |
|||
Revision as of 04:50, 15 July 2006
Thalir
Advert/spam for nn company. Rob 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Good info about the book —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.65.49.240 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-14 07:20:40 (UTC)
- This seems to be good information about the book, is pretty helpful in giving a brief idea on the contents.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.123.182.26 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-14 07:51:52 (UTC)
- Yes, good info about where I can buy the book - point taken. But nonetheless this is a spam. It is asking you to decide to buy the book and telling you where from. It even lists how much the darn thing costs. If I look up 'Gone with the Wind', I can find a lovely article, but not that I can purchase it from Amazon for $9.95-. If the article contained detailed info about what the stories were about, then maybe. But as far as I can see, this is spam, pure and simple. Of course, the great thing about AfD is that I'm simply asking for a Delete. Everyone can have their say etc. Please vote for a Keep if you disagree that the article is spam. Thanks for your comments. Rob 12:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete written like an advertisement, Thalir magazine only gets 1 g-hit to a forum so probably not notable either.--Andeh 12:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete possible failure of WP:CORP, crashes and burns while trying to pass WP:SPAMWilyD 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a massive failure of WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not free ad space. --DarkAudit 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- [10:30 EST] * Consider Edit instead of delete. If it is considered advertising, why don't you suggest editing the article instead? -NS, State College, PA— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.16.236 (talk • contribs)
- Delete. Maybe wiki should just start selling ad pages to subsidize costs [facetious, of course] Mystache 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Heavy sigh per Mystache, and I suspect it would work, too. Tychocat 17:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not to DELETE- Article edited to remove the advertising contents like email and how to buy the book etc. Hope that it will be satisfy most people.
- Better, but it is still encouraging people to buy the book, i.e. spam. I would vote to keep if the article simply indicated who published the book, when it was published, a synopsis, the contents (which is currently fine), critical reviews maybe etc. Place an external link for the company who published. Unfortunately, IMHO, the last section 'why you should buy the book' / 'why you shouldnt' is a dead give away as to why this is still spam. Rob 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not to DELETE-All the advertising content is removed. Only informaiton remains.